[2025] KECA 967 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not complied with its directions to serve the hearing notice on the respondents and to file an affidavit of service. Compliance with procedural requirements is mandatory for the proper administration of justice and to ensure that all parties are accorded a fair hearing. In the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 967 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Gathuku Kinyanjui; Respondent: Julia Wanjiru Gatihuri; Respondent: Savio Ndungu Gatihuri; Respondent: Paul Gathiaka Gatihuri
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) 101 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Substitution of Respondent
- Outcome
- Application not determined; relisted for hearing upon compliance with service directions.
- Judges
- F Sichale
- Legal Topics
- Substitution of Parties, Appeal Procedure, Service of Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen Gathuku Kinyanjui
Applicant
Julia Wanjiru Gatihuri
Respondent
Savio Ndungu Gatihuri
Respondent
Paul Gathiaka Gatihuri
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Substitution of Respondent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with the court's directions to serve the hearing notice on the respondents and file an affidavit of service.
- 2 Whether the application for substitution of respondents could proceed in the absence of compliance with service directions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not complied with its directions to serve the hearing notice on the respondents and to file an affidavit of service. Compliance with procedural requirements is mandatory for the proper administration of justice and to ensure that all parties are accorded a fair hearing. In the absence of evidence of service, the court could not proceed to determine the application for substitution. The court therefore directed the registry to relist the matter on a priority basis and issue a fresh hearing notice to the applicant, who must then serve the respondents and file an affidavit of service before the application can be heard.
Court Disposition
Application not determined; relisted for hearing upon compliance with service directions.
Orders
- The registry is directed to relist the matter on a priority basis.
- The registry shall issue and serve the applicant with a fresh hearing notice.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Kinyanjui v Gatihuri & 2 others (Of the Estate of Peter Gatihuri Kiragu - Deceased) (Civil Appeal (Application) 101 of 2019) [2025] KECA 967 (KLR) (23 May 2025) (Order)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 967 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Appeal (Application) 101 of 2019
F Sichale, JA
May 23, 2025
Between
Stephen Gathuku Kinyanjui
Applicant
and
Julia Wanjiru Gatihuri
1st Respondent
Savio Ndungu Gatihuri
2nd Respondent
Paul Gathiaka Gatihuri
3rd Respondent
Of the Estate of Peter Gatihuri Kiragu - Deceased
(Being an Application for Substitution of the Respondent pursuant to Rule 87 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022)
Order
1. The applicant Stephen Gathuku Kinyanjui who is in person had by the motion on notice dated 24th February 2025, brought under Rule 44 (1) & 2, Rule 45 (a), Rule 49 (1) and Rule 87 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, urged this Court sitting as a Single Judge to substitute Julia Wanjiru Gatihuri, Savio Ndungu Gatihuri and Paul Gathiaka Gatihuri as the new respondents in this matter in place of Peter Gatihuri Karigu now deceased.
2. The motion came up hearing on 5th May 2025 and the Court slated the same for ruling on 23rd May 2025. Upon further perusal of the file, the Court noted that vide a hearing notice served on the applicant and the then advocates for the deceased respondent on 28th April 2025, the applicant was directed to serve a copy of the hearing notice on the respondents and thereafter file an affidavit of service evidencing service.
3. Upon further perusal of the record, the Court noted that the applicant had not complied with directions issued by the Court in the said hearing notice.
4. In view of the above, the registry is directed to relist the matter on a priority basis and issue and serve the applicant with a fresh hearing notice. The applicant will in turn effect service of the hearing notice on the respondents and file an affidavit of service to that effect.
MADE AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2025. F. SICHALEJUDGE OF APPEAL